The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company based on the violation of policy condition due to the rider not possessing a valid driving license at the time of the accident.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award, dated 26.03.2018, passed in M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Palani.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 26.03.2018, passed in M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Palani.

2. The Insurance Company is the appellant herein, challenging the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2012 on the grounds of liability as well as quantum.

3. The first respondent herein as claim petitioner filed the above claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sutained in the road accident and he examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.14.

4. The appellant / Insurance Company filed counter statement stating that at the time of the accident, the driver of the first respondent, second respondent herein, does not possess valid driving license.

5. The Tribunal has negatived the said contention and directed the appellant / Insurance Company to pay the compensation and hence, the appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company would contend that the first respondent herein is the claim petitioner. The second respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle and the manner of the accident being that on 14.12.2010 at about 08.00 p.m., near Kandasamy House on the Pondhupuli – Kavalapatti Main Road, when the alleged injured Rajendran was walking along the road towards north, a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-57- AZ-4960 coming from north to south driver by its rider cum first respondent in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the petitioner and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. He has also raised the plea that the rider of the second respondent does not have license to drive the motor cycle at the time and date of the accident and hence, the same amounts to violation of the policy condition.

7. It is seen from the records that to substantiate the plea of the appellant / Insurance Company regarding non-possession of valid driving license by the rider of the vehicle, on Court summons R.W.1, Assistant from the Regional Transport Officer, was examined and he has stated that as per Ex.R.1, the driver of the vehicle does not possess valid driving license and it was not even produced at the time of the inspection by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The second respondent herein, owner of the vehicle, has not taken any steps to produce the copy of the driving license of the driver, also assumes significance. In view of the specific evidence of R.W.1 coupled with Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2, I find that on the date of accident, there is no driving license to the rider of the two wheeler and hence, the owner of the vehicle has allowed consciously to drive the vehicle and therefore, it amounts to violation of the policy condition and hence, following the decision in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajamanickam reported in 2011(1) TN MAC 288 MS, pay and recovery is ordered as it is the case of no driving license.

8. On the point of quantum of compensation, it appears that Ex.X.1, Wound Certificate, was marked. As per Ex.X.1, the injured sustained 30% disability. On both legs, both the bones, i.e., tibia and fibula were broken and there is a mal-union on the left leg and there is shortening of length of left leg by 1 c.m. and the Tribunal has rightly assessed 30% disability. Taking into consideration the restrictions in the leg movement, loss of notional monthly income was fixed at Rs. 7,000/- and for the age of 46, multiplier of 13 was adopted. Taking into consideration that in view of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident, he could not do the job as he could do before the accident, following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another reported in 2010(2) TN MAC 581(SC), the Tribunal has rightly adopted multiplier method on the ground that the injuries sustained by